CCAN

Controversial decision undercuts New York law that sought $75 billion from the largest historical emitters to fund climate resilience, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for extreme weather impacts

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Despite a controversial ruling out of New York State, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) vowed to continue efforts to make polluters, not taxpayers, pay for mounting climate damages.  A federal circuit court judge ruled Monday that New York could not enforce its Climate Change Superfund Act. This ruling, which will likely be appealed, was based on a controversial decision made by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and does not amount to a national rejection of climate superfund laws.

New York’s Superfund law, enacted in 2024, would have required the world’s largest fossil fuel companies responsible for significant historical greenhouse gas emissions to contribute to a $75 billion fund supporting climate resilience and adaptation in the Empire State. The fund was designed to help frontline communities address the escalating financial burdens of flooding, extreme heat, infrastructure damage, and other climate change-related impacts. 

“Communities should not be forced to shoulder the enormous costs of a climate crisis they did not create,” said Quentin Scott, Federal Policy Director at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “For decades, fossil fuel companies have profited from selling products that drive climate change, while families are left paying for flooded homes, damaged infrastructure, extreme heat, and rising costs. The industry’s preferred outcome is that the public pays all the costs of their pollution. We cannot accept a system where polluters keep the profits and taxpayers are left with the bill.”

As communities across the country face mounting costs from climate-driven disasters and extreme weather, climate superfund laws are an effort to establish a simple principle we all learn as children: those who helped make the mess should help clean up the mess. 

This is NOT the final word on state superfund bills. The result is a reflection of one judge’s interpretation of a controversial precedent from a fundamentally different case. That controversial precedent is not binding across most of the rest of the country, and states should not be discouraged from pursuing innovative approaches to climate accountability. CCAN will continue to pursue Superfund policies in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC and beyond.

The post New York Climate Superfund Court Ruling Not the Final Word on State Superfund Laws appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Op-ed by Sidnie Duncan, Advocacy and Outreach Fellow at CCAN, originally published in the Roanoke Times.

College students today face a dilemma with artificial intelligence (AI). On one hand, AI can make schoolwork faster, clearer and learning more personalized. On the other hand, it’s tied to growing inequality, worsening climate change and real public health concerns. College students feel trapped between utilizing AI to get ahead academically or rejecting it to avoid its harms. This binary thinking oversimplifies the reality: AI can be a valuable tool, and its negatives can be mitigated through thoughtful regulation, ethical oversight and responsible development.

As the generation inheriting the consequences of today’s decisions, college students have a stake in shaping what AI becomes and a responsibility to advocate for sustainable AI development that works for everyone, not against the planet or the communities it impacts.

I am a rising senior at Virginia Tech, part of a generation that has grown up alongside rapid technological change. From touchscreen devices to virtual reality, we’ve seen the benefits and the drawbacks firsthand. We’ve seen how devices and social media impact our sleep, attention spans, self-image and social skills. We’re now watching tech reshape the lives of the next generation. We joke about “iPad kids,” but there’s an unsettling reality behind the humor. Watching our siblings and peers lose their social skills to screens has left many college students questioning the consequences of unchecked technological growth.

Fossil-fueled data centers consume gigantic amounts of electricity and water, straining local resources while increasing air pollution and environmental noise. Research shows these environmental impacts are already taking a toll on public health. On top of that, the continued proliferation of large-scale, fossil-fueled data centers could triple electricity demand, driving up utility bills for families.

Through my fellowship with Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) doing grassroots climate advocacy, I have witnessed these impacts in Northern Virginia, widely known as the data center capital of the world. From rising electricity costs to widespread water shortages, Virginians are feeling the weight of rapid data center expansion. I have spoken to both Republicans and Democrats who share concerns about this issue, reinforcing that this is not a partisan debate. It is about protecting public health, keeping energy affordable, and ensuring that our community is not sacrificed for the profit of Big Tech developers.

As digital literacy grows to be more valuable to employers, universities are creating AI-related coursework and integrating it into assignments. Last semester, four out of five of my classes included assignments that required the use of AI. What stood out wasn’t the use of AI itself, but the lack of discussion around it. For context, my major is Environmental Conservation and Society. You would think that in a field focused on sustainability, we would at least talk about the environmental, ethical and social impacts of AI before using it so extensively, but no. There was no discussion. That disconnect is frustrating, especially in fields that emphasize systems thinking.

AI isn’t just changing how we can get ahead; it’s reinforcing inequalities of who gets a chance to succeed. Over 90% of employers rely on AI to pre-screen resumes; some tools have been proven to exhibit racial and gender biases that deny candidates based on the presence of demographic signals rather than the absence of relevant skills — echoing historical patterns of hiring discrimination. AI isn’t born biased; it’s been baked into the historical data it’s trained on. Without proper correction, this will continue to perpetuate white supremacist values in hiring and will undercut the social progress we’ve made during my lifetime. If we don’t address these failures, we aren’t just tolerating discrimination; we are automating it.

We don’t have to choose between being supportive of AI or being fair to our planet and communities. Both are possible, but only if we act quickly.

We must advocate for universities and corporations to invest in renewable energy infrastructure that will support innovative technology while reducing its environmental impact. Sustainable, equitable and accountable AI development is critical to ensure the boom of AI is looked back on as being positively revolutionary. Join forces with advocacy groups to lobby your local and state policymakers to create clean energy and environmental guardrails for data centers.

Op-ed by Sidnie Duncan, Advocacy and Outreach Fellow at CCAN, originally published in the Roanoke Times.

About the Author: Sidnie Duncan is a rising senior at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech), where she is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Conservation and Society.

She was the Advocacy and Outreach CCAN Fellow for summer 2026.

The post Generation Raised by Technology Must Shape AI’s Future appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Policymakers Need Solar Reflective Methods Research — NOT Conspiracy Theories

 

By Quentin Scott, Federal Policy Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

What if scientists might one day have tools that could temporarily slow down the worst immediate effects of climate change, protect millions of lives, and buy us more time to advance the clean energy transition? 

What if those tools could help slow the melting of glaciers and sea-level rise in New Orleans, Miami, and low-lying cities across the country? What if we could reduce the number of dangerous heat events like the ones we experienced this month? 

Now, what if your elected representatives were actively trying to ban research into these tools that could save lives? That’s not a hypothetical. It’s what happened this legislative session in statehouses across the country.

Seventy Bills Built on Misinformation

In 2026, lawmakers introduced 70 bills across 29 states to ban or restrict research into a suite of technologies that could potentially cool the planet on a temporary basis and buy us more time to cut carbon pollution. Let that number sink in. That’s not a fringe movement: that’s a coordinated legislative campaign, largely driven by climate-denying, conspiracy-oriented right-wing networks, to ban even the possibility of learning if such technologies are viable options to save our planet.

At hearing after hearing, testimony relied on misinformation. In Alabama, witnesses claimed that tiny particles that reflect sunlight, a form of solar radiation management scientists are researching, were giving bees Alzheimer’s. In South Carolina, a key witness linked this climate research to Bill Gates “controlling populations.” And in New Hampshire, a witness showed pictures of “chemtrails,” pushing a debunked conspiracy theory that airplanes are secretly spraying chemicals. The witness testified that “they” — whoever “they” are — “are severely spraying.” 

None of these conspiracy theories are grounded in evidence. And there is one glaring hole in their argument: no geoengineering is currently deployed at climate‑relevant scale. We’re just talking about researching this new technology — not yet deploying it. Multiple bill sponsors, when asked directly, even admitted they had no firsthand knowledge of geoengineering occurring in their states – because it’s not. It’s not happening anywhere.

One Arizona sponsor acknowledged he didn’t have “specific knowledge” it was happening but said he had “testimony coming up that may lead to the conclusion that there might be some of that going on.” They won’t find anything because there isn’t anything to find. A Rhode Island sponsor described the topic as “the Wild West” and said, to his credit, that “most people, myself included, know very little about it.” And that’s exactly the problem: lawmakers are legislating based on confusion, not evidence.

Scientists, Farmers, and Agencies Push Back

Researchers, climate groups, business leaders, and even state agencies testified against these bad bills. In Maryland, I testified that the bill penalizes research and that “whatever the underlying concern, this bill doesn’t solve it.” Business groups expressed concerns that the broadly written language could capture everything from agriculture cloud seeding and snow-making at ski resorts to everyday farming equipment that emits sulfur dioxide. 

In South Dakota, the state’s Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources disagreed with sponsors’ ‘assurances’ that farmers would be exempt from the bill’s bans. This is what a legislative effort built on misinformation looks like: chaotic, technically incoherent, and disconnected from science.

What Happened When the Bills Faced Legislatures

How far did these bills actually get? Not very.

Of the 70 bills introduced, 60 are dead. One (Arizona’s HB2042) passed its legislature but was vetoed by the governor. Only one bill has been signed into law; it’s an add-on to a law Louisiana passed last year, expanding the list of prohibited chemicals. That’s it.

The volume of bill introductions and the energy behind this effort, and the picture it paints, become clear: for all the noise, these bills have almost no legs.

The pattern is consistent: bills are introduced, get a hearing, but once they run into simple questions — How do you enforce this? What counts as geoengineering? Would this affect farmers? Would this ban legitimate research? — they stall. The conspiracy theories don’t hold up to scrutiny. Neither does the policy.

Why Research Must Come Before Deployment

I’ve spent my career working on climate policy. I know how badly we need every tool in the toolbox. And solar reflective methods (SRM) research — not deployment, research — is one of those tools we cannot afford to kneecap before we even understand it.

Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) does not support SRM deployment. We do support studying whether it could work, what the risks are, who would be affected, and who would get a say. Those are responsible questions. And we need to know those answers—before other nations, private companies, and rogue billionaires make those decisions for us.

Banning SRM research does not make these technologies disappear. It only ensures that, if they are ever used, or if someone else proceeds without public oversight, we will be unprepared.

Here’s what I find especially troubling about this legislative trend: the bills that got the furthest weren’t necessarily the most scientifically coherent; they were the ones in states where the political environment made it easier to move fast and ask questions later. In some hearings, no substantive debate was held at all. A committee vote with no substantive discussion is not a policy process: it’s a vibe check.

Meanwhile, the federal government has shown more interest in restricting climate science than in building the governance frameworks we actually need. That vacuum creates space for state-level chaos like this. And it’s why groups like CCAN are pushing for transparent, publicly funded, equitably governed research. The alternative is to leave these decisions to private companies with no guardrails or to legislatures that openly admit they don’t understand the technologies they’re voting on.

The Fight is Not Over

The good news from this session is that when scientists, farmers, business groups, state agencies, and environmental advocates showed up to say “wait, have you thought this through?”, most of the bills collapsed. That matters.

The 2026 state legislative session is over in most states, which means the immediate threat from this wave is largely contained — for now.

But this threat isn’t going away. The same networks that drove this session’s bills will be back. Louisiana’s law will give advocates a new template to point to. As climate impacts worsen and SRM research receives more public attention, the political pressure around these technologies will only intensify.

The question for the climate movement isn’t whether SRM will be on the research agenda. It already is. The question is whether the people who care most about equity, transparency, and the future of the planet will be in the room when the decisions are made.

If scientists and climate advocates aren’t in the room, the room doesn’t just go away. It just gets populated with self-interested private actors and foreign governments instead. Declaring an outright ban on this research makes this outcome even more likely.

The Bottom Line

Seventy bills. Twenty-nine states. Zero new laws passed this year.

By the numbers, this legislative session was a failure for the anti-research effort. But we’re not ready to relax just yet. We know that the opposition to responsible climate research is organized, loud, and will be back next year.

CCAN will be watching. We hope you will be, too.

About the author: Quentin Scott (he/him) joined CCAN in January 2021 as part of the newly created CCAN Federal Team. He moved from Chicago specifically to build political will for groundbreaking national climate and climate justice policies. Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, he got a first-hand look at the two Americas and sought to bring the two Americas closer together through advocacy.

Before joining CCAN, Quentin was chief of staff for an Illinois State Representative and a legislative correspondent in the US House of Representatives, and has led numerous issue and candidate campaigns across the Midwest and East Coast. In his roles, he has stood with neighborhood groups to hold industrial polluters accountable in communities of color and looks forward to bringing that fight to the federal level.

The post 70 Bills, 29 States: Misinformation Fuels Campaign Against Climate Science appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.